Back to the Future, Forward to the Past

"History teaches us that man learns nothing from history."

"There is nothing new under the sun."

When the War of Independence ended, King George III of England signed a peace treaty with each individual state, named one by one in the document, and not with some obtrusive, consolidated entity called "the United States government."

Each state had accumulated an amount of war debt. Some states, like Virginia, were more responsible and diligent than others in paying off their debt, but other states, like northern Massachusetts, dragged their feet in paying off their debt. The first secretary of the treasury, Alexander Hamilton, proposed socializing or nationalizing the debt, which would force the more responsible states to foot the bill for the less responsible states.

Thomas Jefferson and James Madison opposed Hamilton's radical socialist attempt to disrupt the sovereignty of the individual states. They and others led Congress to defeat Hamilton's assumption plan five times, beginning in April 1790. Hamilton then used one last big bargaining chip. He and his supporters wanted the nation's capital to remain in New York City; Jefferson and Madison, being Virginians themselves, wanted the capital to be located along the Potomac River in Virginia. Hamilton went to dinner with Jefferson and offered to eliminate the political opposition to moving the capital to Virginia if, in return, Jefferson and Madison would marshal the congressional votes needed to get the assumption bill passed.

The deal was struck; the central government assumed the state war debts, and our nation's capital is Washington, D.C. today and not New York City. To secure the support of Pennsylvania's politicians, the national capital was located in Philadelphia for ten years. That dinner proved to be one of the most costly meals in U.S. history.

The national debt soared to a total of over $80 million. To service this debt, almost 80% of the annual expenditures of the government were required. During the period of 1790-1800, payment of the interest alone of the national debt consumed over 40% of the national tax revenue.

The Party of Hamilton used its power to make it illegal to criticize the Federalist-controlled government. With the Federalist John Adams in the White House, Congress passed a very controversial and notorious Alien & Sedition Act, which was written so that it would expire the day Adams left office. Journalists, ordinary citizens, and even a member of Congress, Matthew Lyons of Vermont, were imprisoned for merely criticizing the government. Those who spoke out against the ever-growing national government were slandered as un-Americans. A Rev. John Ogden simply carried a petition to Philadelphia for the release of Congressman Lyon, and he himself was imprisoned for doing so. Soon the citizens became fearful of the Federalist "reign of terror."

Jefferson and Madison were so incensed about the direction the infant country was taking, that they became authors of the Virginia and Kentucky Resolves of 1798. Both these states declared they had not intention of allowing the Sedition Act to be enforced within their boundaries. States rights triumph over the unconstitutionality of the expanding national government.

Congressman Lyon enjoyed sweet revenge in 1801 when, after being released from prison and reelected to Congress (while still in prison), he cast the decisive vote that made Thomas Jefferson President of the United States in an election that had been thrown into the hands of Congress.

Hamilton's political legacy is that his policies led to the disintegration of the Federalist Party. Heavy taxation, out-0f-control debt, a menacing standing army of tax collectors pre-IRS days, and the Federalist Party's attack on free speech led to the election of President Jefferson in 1800, and the eventual demise of the Federalist Party by the 1820s. While the party died, the party's big government, statist, socialist ideas lived on. The ideology came back with a vengeance under Abraham Lincoln's administration and under the New Deal program under FDR. On the eve of the depression in 1929, the unemployment rate was 3.2%. Eleven years later it soared to 14.6%.

Jefferson by 1807 had abolished all of Hamilton's excise taxes and had cut the government debt by almost 30%. Jefferson had adhered to the idea that the government could borrow for such reasons as financing a defensive war, but only if the current generation was taxed to service the debt.

With the exception of the War between the States and the Spanish-American War periods, the Jeffersonian view of government debt, which was also Adam Smith's view, prevailed into the twentieth century. In the 1930s, a British economist John Maynard Keynes took center stage worldwide. Keynes and his followers, the Keynesians, argued that fiscal irresponsibility on the part of the government was not subject to the same principles as that of individuals and families. The government could simply finance spending with borrowing, thereby pushing the payment of the debt to future generations. After 1964, during the Kennedy administration, the United States embarked on a course of fiscal irresponsibility matched by no other period in its two-century history.

Should we celebrate today because we have certainly learned from the failures of the past, that the ideas of an ever-expansionist national government of Hamilton and his cronies have been laid to rest, and that the mistaken notion of the Sedition Act to silence and villify the voice of the ordinary citizens would never surface in our nation again?

Back to the future, forward to the past.

"When the wicked rise, men hide themselves:

but when they perish, the righteous increase."

Proverbs 28:28

God's High Yield Investment Returns

God has too much invested in His people for Him to allow His investment to go belly up. He always gets great returns on His investment. How many mutual fund account managers can guarantee their clients an increase of "thirty fold, or sixty fold, or hundredfold" on their investments?

Back in 1992 when I joined the PC world, I was advised by a friend to join a religious chat room. This was in the Dark Ages way before Twitter and Facebook. I had no idea at first what he was talking about, but I took his suggestion, and I soon discovered that this chat room idea can be terribly addicting, time consuming and very unprofitable. I soon gave up the chat room excursion, but I did have some interesting "conversations", if you can call them that, with some people over some deep theological and doctrinal issues.

In almost every case, the talk eventually turned to what has been labeled as Calvinism vs. Arminianism. Either people were for the five points, or for some of the points, or for none of the points, and many times the back and forth volley got pretty heated among some chatters. I did find one civil person who I was able to talk to who was dead set against the five points of the doctrines of grace (TULIP), but when pressed, he admitted he did not know what to do with Romans 8:29-30, because the only possible way to understand those two verses was to accept the five points of total depravity, unconditional election, limited atonement (definite, successful atonement), irresistible grace and the perseverance of the saints.

Romans 8:28 is a promise that God gives only to those whom He has called irresistibly by His sovereign grace, but the thought does not end at verse 28, when many people quit the memorization at a place where God put a comma and not a period. To elaborate and further define who these called people are, God says they are the ones that God has foreknown, has predestined, has called, has justified, and has glorified. It is not that God knows ahead of time who will choose Him, because #1, God is the subject throughout the passage; God is the actor and initiator of everything regarding our salvation, #2 it is not what God has foreknown, but WHOM God has foreknown, predestined, called, etc., and #3 "known" in Scripture often means more than just mental knowledge about something, but it means a special love toward someone.

"Adam knew his wife, and she conceived and bore a son." (Gen. 4:1, also 4:17) Adam already had a head knowledge of His wife, but here it means nothing else but an intimate relationship with his wife. "Depart from Me, I never knew you." (Matt. 7:23) God knows everything about everyone, but He does not have a special love toward everyone alike. "You only have I known of all the families of the earth." (Amos 3:2) God mentally knows all the nations on the earth, but only one, Israel in the Old Testament, had His divine favor resting upon it.

Romans 8:29-30 has been called God's unbroken chain of salvation. He loses none of His investment along the way. The same group He has foreloved, He has predestined. The same group He has predestined (determine their destiny in advance), He has called. The same group He has called, He has justified. The same group He has justified, He has glorified. The crowd does not thin out along the way. Pretenders, hypocrites, empty professors, wolves in sheep clothing, and apostates will fall away, but they never were foreknown in the first place. (1 John 2:19) God will make sure that His Son will have His bride. The true predestined, called, justified Bride of Christ will not jilt her True Love, because the True Love will make sure He will not lose His costly investment.

To add further weight to this high yield return on God's eternal investment, notice that the future aspect in this unbroken chain is mentioned in the past tense. It is not "will be glorified", but "glorified", as if it has already happened. In God's eternal decree, it has already happened. God guarantees the final result, because He got the salvation ball rolling in the first place. Heaven is a done deal for those whom God has dealt a done salvation.

I count about eleven times in v. 31-39 that the word "us" or "we" is used. Who are the "we" or "us" in this context? We are already told their identity in v.28-30. It is not no one in particular and everyone in general, but it is the specified, particular group of the foreknown, predestined, called, justified and glorified. It can mean nobody else, or else the whole train of thought breaks down into confusing nonsense. Read those last nine verses in that chapter and every time you come across the word "us" or "we", just substitute the words "foreknown, predestined, called, justified, and glorified", and it all makes perfect sense. If one still is unsure, then v.33 should remove all doubt, "Who shall lay a charge against God's ELECT?"

God is for the foreloved, predestined, called, justified and glorified. (v.31)

God spared not His Son but delivered Him up for all of the foreloved, predestined, called, justified and glorified. (v.32)

Christ died and is risen, who is even at the right hand of God, who also makes intercession for all the foreloved, predestined, called, justified, and glorified. (v.34)

The investment picture on Wall Street can look pretty bleak at times. A commercial reminds us that some 401ks have become 201ks with our recent economic downturn. Read any mutual fund portfolio and they must inform you that past returns are not a guarantee for future returns, that these investments are not FDIC insured, and that you can lose money and your investment along the way.

Not so with God's investments. These instead are FDIC insured--Father Decreed In Christ.

If God were to lose some of His investments along the way, then how would God be any different than what this world has to offer? "And this is the Father's will which has sent Me, that of all which He has given Me (those foreloved, predestined, called, justified, glorified folks) I should lose nothing, but should raise it up again at the last day." (John 6:39)

God did not take a big gamble when He sent His Son to die on the cross. It was not a roll of the celestial dice. It was a perfectly planned out salvation investment design with a guaranteed outcome.

Instead of our railing against God's investment strategy, we should gratefully and humbly praise the Manager of our salvation account "who began that good work in us and will perform and perfect it until the day of Jesus Christ." (Phil. 1:6)

Now go back and read Romans 8:28 afresh with all this in mind. If God providentially decreed every aspect of your eternal salvation, don't you think He can manage all the lesser details of your life, even those things which may not make much sense now, and even those things that hurt like the dickens, so that the end result will be for your good in your life now, just like the end result of your salvation will be for your good throughout all eternity?

God will not lose out on His investment. You can bank on that.

Kept by God's investment,
Chris

The Call of the Mild

"Speak softly and carry a big stick." -- words of a former President of the United States

". . .but the Lord was not in the wind; and after the wind, an earthquake; but the Lord was not in the earthquake; and after the earthquake, a fire; but the Lord was not in the fire; and after the fire a still small voice." -- an experience of one of God's prophets in 1 Kings 19


If the outward call of the gospel is all we need for people to come to faith in Christ, then we need to think of the most clever, ingenuous, innovative, convincing, dramatic, energetic and successful ways to get the Word out and be done with it.

But since there is something else and more besides the outward call of the gospel, then we should not rely upon the most clever, ingenuous, innovative, convincing, dramatic, energetic and successful ways to get the Word out and be done with it.

Why do we pray for lost folks as well as witness to lost folks? Is it not because--even though we may not have thought of it along these lines before--that we know there are two calls and not just one? We "share the gospel", because that is what God has told us to do. We pray, because that is what God has told us to do.

By praying are we not saying something like this--"Lord, convict my friend _________ of his sin, open his eyes to see the truth, open his heart to receive You into his life, humble him and help him to see his need of You, etc."? Notice how we frame all our prayers for the lost to be saved. How can we pray otherwise? With all our prayers for those lost friends, acquaintances, or family members, we are asking for God to regenerate their hearts, for God to call them irresistibly to Himself. Why else do we pray, if it is not because we know that all our outward calls will amount to nothing unless God provides the inner call of His Spirit?

So I guess those who want to fight against this precious biblical truth of irresistible grace need to quit praying at all for the lost to be saved, in order for their actions to match their words.

We read in Acts 16:14 about a woman named Lydia, "whose heart the Lord opened (that is the inner, irresistible call of God), that she attended unto the things which were spoken of Paul (that is the outward call of the gospel)." We never once read in the Bible of anyone "opening up their own hearts to receive Christ", nor do we read of any preacher of the gospel asking people "to open up their hearts." I guess we would expect to find those things in Scripture if there were only the outward call of the gospel and if people were really not dead in their sin.

Since we do not know whom our Lord is calling, we extend the call of the gospel to everyone. (Mark 16:15) It is not for us to pry into God's business; we are simply to do the Father's business.

Jesus is no wild, raving publcity seeker who must shout at the top of His lungs to get any attention. "He shall not strive, nor cry out, neither shall any man hear His voice in the streets. A bruised reed He shall not break, and smoking flax He shall not quench, till He sends forth judgment unto victory." (Matthew 12:19-20) Since He is gentle and lowly in heart (Matthew 11:29), this irresistible grace or effectual, inner call is not the call of the wild; it is the call of the mild.

God's call to those whom He has fore loved, predestined, justified and glorified (Romans 8:28-30) is not some detectable, dramatic, boisterous call that thunders from the heavens for all to hear. The call is not like an earthquake, a wind storm, or a fire. It is the precious, indescribable, unfathomable, discreet still small voice of a loving God in hot pursuit of a hell bound sinner.

How does God draw His own to Himself (John 6:44)? The Jews who heard Jesus' words in John 6 should have known the answer to that question. How did Yahweh God draw the Israelites to Himself in the Old Testament? "I drew them with cords of a man, with bands of love." (Hosea 11:4) God's call to any of us is irresistible because His love sweeps us off our feet. This is the call of the mild.

Concerning Teddy Roosevelt's advice, we don't have it said that Jesus carried a big stick around when He walked the earth. Maybe His big stick was the Resurrection. If He can raise Himself from the dead by His own power, then He does not need to raise His voice. He has spoken softly to millions upon millions of lost sinners, and that call of the mild works every time.

Called by God's grace,
Chris

Gentle Mental

In a previous article I mentioned how I heard a definition for the doctrine of election when I was much younger, that at the time made much sense to me. "Election is when God casts a vote for you to be saved, the devil casts a vote for you not to be saved, and you have the tie-breaking vote." By using some gentle mental, though, one can begin to see that there are more holes in that statement than there are in a donut shop. Not as a way to brandish a sword against someone, nor to show arrogant one-up-manship over someone, you can use that above statement to get that someone to use some gentle mental on his or her own.

You can begin by quoting the definition and then asking the person if he or she agrees with that statement, and then ask him or her, Why or why not. Then after you listen thoughtfully to the reply given, without any sort of interruption or dead giveaway body language, you can gently point out what would be the only conclusion if that statement were indeed true. Either the devil is on the same level as God (each one has the same number of votes), or worse yet, you are more powerful and influential than both God and the devil, since you have the tie-breaking vote.

What may be the hardest assignment today is to get professing Christians, who are active church goers, to use the mind that God gave them, especially in a day when spiritual showbiz or postmodern thought may await them each Sunday. It can be done, though, in a one-on-one encounter with gentleness and patience, without trying to play "gotcha." Here are some gentle mental questions that you can insert into a conversation with a friend:

1. Must God have our permission before He can do anything? I have heard people say something along these lines, "You must allow God. . .", or "Permit God to. . ."

2. Can you give me all the times where "free will" is used in the Bible to describe the essential feature of every sinful man?

3. Did and does Jesus Himself have a free will? (Free will means the equal ability to choose to sin or to choose not to sin, to choose God or not to choose God, to decide to repent or to decide not to repent, etc.)

4. If Jesus died for all the sin (which naturally would include the sin of unbelief) of everyone everywhere, then why aren't all people saved?

5. How much life is there in a dead person? (See Ephesians 2:1f to get my drift.)

6. Why is man commanded to repent of sin and believe in Christ, but there is no commandment for us to be born again?

7. What does a dead person need before he can do anything?

8. Why do so many Christians love to quote Romans 8:28 and very few of them it seems will refer to the rest of the verses that follow?

It is to this last question we now turn as we work our way through the five points of salvation: Total depravity, Unconditional election, Limited atonement (or better yet, Successful atonement), and now we arrive at Irresistible Grace (or the effectual call).

When I was a boy playing outside with my friends down the street, toward supper time my mom would step out on our front porch (sorry, kids of today, but this was before we had cell phones) and say as loud as she could in her typical warm voice, "Chris, you need to come in now. It's time for supper." There might be an occasion or two (or more, but who's counting?) when I failed to hear my mother's simple request. I was having too much fun with my friends, or I was up to bat at the time. If I failed to "hear" my mother's call to me, a couple of minutes might pass, and my dad would step out on the front porch and yell something in a very manly tone of voice, "William Chris Humphreys. You come in right now. It's time to eat."

The call of my mother was a resistible call. The call of my dad was an irresistible call. (There is probably a good number of people reading this who knows exactly what I am talking about from their own personal experience!)

I could probably cite an even better illustration. A young bride sees her new husband go off to Afghanistan. He is at a location he can not disclose and communication back home is non-existent most of the time. One day this young bride gets a telephone call from an annoying telemarketer in the middle of the day. After midnight when she has already gone to bed and has been asleep for a couple of hours, she gets an unexpected, surprised call from the love of her life. Now which one of those calls do you think would be properly classified as a resistible call, and which one would be correctly identified as an irresistible call?

Here's the deal. The Bible mentions both kind of calls we get. There is the resistible call. Left in our natural state, every time we hear the outward call of the gospel, we consider it along the lines of an annoying telemarketer. God is bothering me, and I wish He would leave me alone. Or like in my case as a boy, I refuse to hear God speaking to me just like I refused to hear my mom on occasions. I am having too much fun in my sin to hear God speak to me. Such is the plight of every lost person.

All calls to a dead person go unheeded. I tried calling my mom one evening, to be exact, on February 8, 2001, and she did not answer the phone at her apartment. My sister called and got no response. A good friend called as well. None of us got any response when we tried to call her. My mom had died of a cardiac arrest, and she was sitting in her favorite chair in her apartment when we got there. No wonder she did not answer any of our phone calls; she was dead.

That's how it is with all of us who are dead in our sin (Ephesians 2:1, Colossians 2:13). The phone could ring off the hook countless nights long, and my mom wouldn't hear them nor respond to them. All the screaming I could muster up in the ears of my deceased mom would do no good. All the outward calls we give to lost people will have the exact same effect, if all we have to go on are the outward calls of preaching, witnessing, the written Word, gospel tracts, testimonies or other good forms we have at our disposal.

All of us would resist God all the time if it were not for the second kind of call that God gives to many. It's the kind of call mentioned in Romans 8:28 and following. ". . .to those who are THE CALLED (literal Greek has "the called") according to His purpose." The Greek word for our English word "church" literally means "the called out ones." It is only those who love God who are the called out ones, according to Romans 8:28.

I know a lot of Christians read Romans 8:28 without thinking along these lines. I can relate, because I did that myself for a good number of years. We quote it in rapid-fire fashion, and we use it to console or encourage others or ourselves, but we fail to see that this promise is given to a very specific group of people that are specifically identified as "the called", those who have received an irresistible inward call of God which enables them to overcome their natural dead-in-sin-and-trespasses resistance to God so that now they love God. God is not some big annoyance that shows up in the middle of our lives; He has now become the adoring King over all areas of our lives.

Some people get the wrong notion when they hear the term, "irresistible grace." They imagine that there are people that are zapped into salvation, or that they go kicking and screaming against their wills into God's kingdom. They are saved when they don't want to be saved, because it is "irresistible", beyond their power to say "no." Nothing could be further from the truth. Do you think that the young bride who gets a call from her husband in Afghanistan has to be forced into talking to her husband, even if she wakes up with a splitting headache after a few hours sleep? Do you think she is kicking and screaming in protest in having to take this call from her love? Or is it more likely that a team of wild horses could not and would not keep her from talking to her husband?

This special kind of call from God is irresistible in the same sense, that when the new Love of our life calls us, nothing will stand in the way of our coming to Him. We are drawn to Christ just like a newborn is drawn to its mother. When a person is born again, or becomes a newborn spiritually (regeneration), God unilaterally and unconditionally gives life where there was death; He takes away the old "will" that would not and could not come to Christ (John 5:40, 6:44, 6:65), and He replaces it with a new "will" that will freely, readily, eagerly and lovingly come in faith and repentance to the new Love in his life (John 6:37). Whereas before God was nothing but like an annoying telemarketer or a disturbing figure who was intruding into the fun I was having in my life, now He has become my chief treasure and the One who instills me within life eternally and more abundantly. (I may not have liked it at the start, but I'm so glad I listened to my dad's irresistible calls at times, because my mom was a great cook, and I never left her table unsatisfied! I could live without an extra inning of baseball, but I could not live without my mom's cooking.)

This article has probably become too lengthy, such that some might find this piece too "resistible" by now. With that being so, I better wrap up things for now.

Just one final thought though--if a person will come to know the different calls mentioned in Scripture, so much of God's Word will fall into place now. For example, have you wondered what Jesus meant when He said on more than one occasion, "Many are called, but few are chosen"? (Matthew 20:16, 22:14) Many do receive the outward call of God through sermons, evangelism, missions, testimonies, written literature, etc., but only a few are chosen (the elect ones), who receive an additional type of call, an irresistible call, whereby one comes freely to Christ to be saved.

God commands us to do what we can do. We must call all sinners to come to Christ. We extend the outward call of the gospel to anyone and to everyone. But all of that is for naught if it were not for the inward effectual irresistible call of God. When and only when a person receives this special calling from God will that person call out to God to be saved. We find that in Acts 2 when in the same evangelistic sermon Peter said "whoever calls on the name of the Lord will be saved" (v.21) and later he said, "for the promise to unto you and to your children and to all that are afar off, as many as the Lord our God will call (v.39)." One can not level the charge that knowing and teaching all these truths will shut down our evangelistic efforts. It sure didn't stop Peter one bit. About three thousand were called by God that day, and that same three thousand called upon God.

"For our gospel came not to you in word only (the outward call of the gospel), but also in power, and in the Holy Spirit, and in much assurance. . .(the inner, irresistible call) 1 Thessalonians 1:5

I do thank the Lord for those loving parents and other faithful Christians who extended the gospel call to me when I was a boy, but I praise my sovereign, good Lord for that sweet, regenerating call of God's Spirit which enabled me to respond to those cumulative outward calls.

Called by God's grace,
Chris

A Non-Typical "Dear John" Letter

Dear John,

I don't know why I am writing this to you, because I know it won't reach you. Since it is your birthday, I felt I had to do something to honor you. Five hundred years ago today, on July 10, 1509, the Lord blessed your parents with a little boy who was destined by God to become a great champion of the faith. Your legacy lives on today, although I am sad to report, many would deny your contributions, and others would love to rid your name altogether from the annals of history.

Much has changed since you walked on God's green earth. Sometimes I wish you were still around, but then again I am happy for you considering where you are. Then again, according to Methusaleh's calculations, if you were still alive today, you would have only reached mid-life by now.

I live in a new country that was not even born when you died. Our first President was a man by the name of George, and he is affectionately called the Father of our Country. While that is true, in reality you, John, deserve that title. Our country was birthed out of Europe, and in particular, the Protestant Reformation. Even many historians today see the direct link to what you espoused in your lifetime, such as a representative form of republic, free market capitalism, individual entrepreneurial spirit, freedom of religion, freedom of the press, among other things, and what we have enjoyed in our nation now for over two hundred years. (I must confess, though, that many of those cherished traditions are under attack from many corners.)

I read a book once on our nation's constitution, and the respected author freely admits that he was not a follower of all your ideas. In a footnote, though, he honestly acknowledges that most of what we find in our founding documents are borrowed from your understanding of Scripture. Of course, that understanding was not yours alone, but was shared by countless number of peoples who initially came to our country, namely the Pilgrims, Puritans, and Separatists, and other like-minded groups. For example, the biblical teaching on the total depravity of man had a huge role in our country's founding fathers when they drew up three branches of government with all the checks and balances that were needed to protect us against man's despotic sinful nature.

Sadly, our country went through a big cultural shift in the first half of the 1800s, and we have not recovered from it. Early in our nation's history we had two great awakenings from God, heaven-sent revivals with thousands of conversions that swept across our land and preserved it from internal spiritual and moral collapse. While there were many men who God used in those two great movements from God, the two most prominent men were Jonathan Edwards and George Whitefield, great preachers of the gospel that followed in your theological footsteps. Since our country has turned away from our doctrinal heritage as a nation, we have not seen a genuine mass movement of God in our country for over two hundred years now. What was generally held to be true by many at one time in our nation's history has been either swept under the rug or given the boot out the back door in most places of worship today.

What pains me more than anything is that those who profess the name of Christ do not know who you are, or what you stood for, or they don't care. We have moved on, and we are more into other things now. We have lots of religion, just like in your day, but as you wrote and preached about on so many occasions, many can have a form of godliness, but deny the power thereof. Tares grow up with wheat. Wolves don sheep's clothing. An outward profession does not mean an inward possession.

As you taught so well and so consistently, God truly is sovereign in everything in the universe, and that includes the salvation of man. Today, we may give lip service to your sovereignty, so long your sovereignty does not interfere with man's sovereignty over some things. Today man must increase, even if it causes God to decrease some.

There are many today who go way beyond of just ignoring you and your contributions. There are those who revile you, who will curl up their nose and upper lip at the mention of your name, who accuse you of the most vilest things imaginable. Some will say that you were harsh, stern, unloving, judgmental, overly strict, Pharisaical, unevangelistic, and other things I dare not mention. After all, it is supposed to be your birthday. Those who knew you best and up close know those things were simply untrue. You were a loving family man and a gentle humble shepherd of God's flock under your care. You had an enduring and endearing passion for souls, for the Word of God, and for God's glory.

We have a leader in our country whom some think would make a great leader over all our country. She was a governor of one of our fifty states, and many believe she has been unfairly targeted with the most baseless attacks on her character. Whether she would be a great national leader or not is debatable, and that is beside the point. I just wish that those who criticize you most will step back and see that they are doing the same things against you that many say are being done against this governor, or anybody else who is being slandered and falsely attacked.

I have heard in my lifetime that people don't want to be associated with you in any way, because "we should not follow any one man, and that we should only follow the Lord." You would be the first one to agree with that statement. I guess people are really scared or irked when they hear people who basically agree with you as being called by your last name with an -ist tucked on at the end. Knowing your high commitment to the name of Christ you would be horrified and disgusted yourself if you knew that people are identified by your last name. You would do your best to put a stop to it, but with that being said, in our day we don't follow one man; we follow many men, we adore many men, we worship many men, and those men sometimes have very little in common with the biblical gospel.

The nature of Christianity today in our country is that we will identify ourselves with the latest anything that comes along. Several days ago we saw a very popular man by the name of Michael die. I can't go over all his life story, John, because you wouldn't understand it, and you especially couldn't understand how millions of people could watch his funeral service all over the world. A lot has changed, John, like I said. But after hearing with my own ears and after seeing things with my own eyes what has said and done at this man's funeral, I almost became convinced that they needed to keep his dead body under heavy guard where they had his funeral service for at least three days, lest his followers come steal his body. And then on the third day, everyone could come back to the same place and watch this Michael guy dance his way out of his coffin. It is ironic and contradictory, to say the least, when people accuse us of following you, just because we believe you on some key doctrinal points, when today there are people who fall down and worship all sorts of individuals all the time. That is done all the time in religious circles too.

John, I don't agree with you on every single point you taught, and I don't follow you in the sense I should follow Christ and Him alone. At the same time, the Bible says we ought to obey our leaders who spoke the Word of God to us, submit to them, consider the outcome of their lives, and imitate their faith. So, John, while others may spurn you, deny you, ignore you, ridicule you, and attack you, I want to thank you on your birthday, or more especially I want to thank the good Lord for giving you to us. Even though you are dead, you still speak. I have many of your writings in my personal library. That's not a bad legacy for someone who was born 500 years ago.

I must end this "Dear John" letter on an encouraging note. Maybe we are seeing a reversal of trends in our country. Due to whole host of factors working together, more and more people are coming around to see and accept what you taught, preached and wrote during your lifetime. How shall I word it? There are many alternative ways of educating our young people today, and because of that, so many people are learning for the first time the glories of Reformation history. While at one time old books by these great saints of the past like the Puritans were buried under layers of dust in some remote library archives, they are now being printed and published the world over. People are reading what they have to say, and people's minds are being opened up to truths forgotten or buried under layers of dust in near and faraway pulpits.

Added to all that, numerous bold preachers have stepped forward to herald these great truths, and two of the most notable men carry your first name. One preacher John is from a state called California, and the other preacher John is from a state called Minnesota. Because we have ways of communication that are far numerous and superior than what you had in your day, John, these preachers, and others just like them, are getting the Word out to a massive worldwide audience. (You would be pleased to know a long time after you God raised up another John, this time in England, who wrote a book called Pilgrim's Progress. It is the most read and published religious book in the world, second only to the Bible.)

So maybe, just maybe, things are looking up, John, in our day. That is where we should be looking any way, since He is the author and finisher of our faith.

Happy birthday, John. I will see you one day in glory. I will know where to find you then. You will be at the feet of One who saved you by His grace, and that is where we all will be. Some or many may fight it now, but then at that time all must and will acknowledge that salvation was and is entirely from God. May that recognition come sooner, though, and not later. Thank you, dear Lord, for using your servant John for many to come to that recognition sooner, and may many more follow in those same paths.

Yours by grace alone through faith alone in Christ alone for God's glory alone,
Chris

Michael Jackson & The Gospel

My sister sometimes thinks (and rightly so at times) that since I live way out in the sticks where I barely have indoor plumbing and electricity (so that I can watch my PC monitor without having to revert to candles), I am not able to keep up with the latest what is going on in the world.

Just tonight she emailed me informing me that, in case I hadn't heard yet, Michael Jackson had died. I replied that I had heard something along those lines. (Even the cavemen in the Geico commercials had surely heard about this bit of news.) I ended my email to my sister with this caption: "Death--Not Even Michael Jackson Could BEAT IT."

I must admit that she easily one upped me though. Her quick reply back was: "Yes. And it might not have been a Thriller."

We have had wall to wall coverage on Michael Jackson, so there is absolutely nothing I can add. He had incredible talent, but somewhere along the way, this little boy with a fantastic voice became a very unhappy camper. At the time of his death, his net worth was in the nine figures. But what shall it profit a man if he shall gain the whole world, be a worldwide celebrity, have number one hits, be universally recognized and adored, live in luxury every day of his life, be a king that would top king Elvis, but lose his own soul?

Is Michael Jackson's life now a thriller?

I read just tonight that the latest rumor circulating the internet is that Michael Jackson repented of his sin in his last days and "accepted Christ" as his Savior. Andre Crouch and his sister visited Michael Jackson just days before his death, and they had some interesting spiritual conversations, but according to Andre Crouch, there was nothing there to suspect that Michael Jackson turned to Christ in faith and repentance before his death.

Michael grew up a Jehovah's Witness, left that cult early in his career, and converted to Islam last year. Did Michael convert to Christ before his death? Did Michael repent of his sin? Did Michael put his sole trust in Christ alone? Where is Michael now? Who knows the answer to these questions?

God does.

We can wishfully speculate, and unlike John Lennon, imagine that Michael is in heaven now, but one thing is for sure--nothing man can do in this life impresses God. The Lord is not star-crazy, and He is not bowled over by man's successes. What "impressed" God was the death of His Son, who in the very nature of God, took man's sin upon his body on the cross and paid the full penalty of man's sin. It was that substitutionary death that averted and appeased the just wrath of God and appropriated the mercy and grace of God to every repentant, trusting heart. It is this gospel of Jesus Christ that makes an eternal impression upon God.

I grew up a big New York Yankees fan, because my dad was. The team of Mickey Mantle, Roger Maris, Yogi Berra, Bobby Richardson, Whitey Ford, Clete Boyer, Elston Howard, and others--now that was America's team. The Yankees of today are not the Yankees of yesteryear. I loved Mickey Mantle. I wore number 7 as a boy, and if I had a "hero", it would have been Mickey Mantle.

Mickey, though, lived a rough life. He made no pretensions of being a moral, upright individual, let alone a professing Christian. I was so delighted to read and hear that before Mickey Mantle died, Bobby Richardson witnessed to Mickey at length, and Mickey Mantle repented of his sin and became a believer in Jesus Christ. From all accounts, it was a genuine conversion experience.

If Michael called out to God for salvation like what Mickey did before his timely death (all deaths are timely from God's perspective, since the very days of our lives are all numbered), then Michael's life now is much more than a thriller, and he, through Christ, was able to beat death after all. Isn't that what Jesus told Martha in John 11:25-26 when Martha's brother had died?

We can romanticize all we want to that Farrah has gone from being Charlie's Angel to the Lord's Angel, that Michael is leading the heaven's choir, that Ed McMahon has won the Big Sweepstakes himself now, that Billy Mays is now the Lord's pitch man, but romanticism never got a soul in heaven.

Like everyone else, all those celebrities need the gospel. We need Jesus in this life, so that we can have Him in the life to come. That's the thriller, and nothing can beat it.

Yours in Christ,
Chris

Warren and Purpose-Driven Deaths

Young Iranians are taking to the streets to revolt against the mullahs that control every aspect of daily life in Iran. Maybe the winds of freedom blowing from Iraq have caused many brave Iranians to crave that same liberty which has been denied them for so long. Our President has been very slow and hesitant to speak strongly on behalf of those who are risking their lives. Former Presidents have quickly rallied behind those in different countries who wanted so much to whiff that same air of freedom that we breathe every day in our nation. (One, though, does wonder if that air of freedom we breathe is being more and more contaminated with each and every passing day.)

While all this is going on, what does America's self-appointed pastor decide to do? Rick Warren is scheduled to speak at the annual convention of The Islamic Society of North America, July 3-6, in our nation's capital. What kind of "mosque growth" tips will he give to the conference participants, which include Dr. Muzammil Hussain Siddiqi, an ardent Islamic fascist/terrorist who led a flag burning in Los Angeles where he spat on and cursed the American flag?

Rick Warren has already stated Muslims and Christians worship the same God, so it is hardly likely he will preach from John 14:6 at this upcoming conference.

What will Rick say? What can he say to keep up his image of being a world reconciler, a healer among all faiths, the promoter of his own P.E.A.C.E. program? Will he be like the apostle Paul who said, "We can do nothing against the truth, but for the truth?" Will he be like our Savior when he faced the Sanhedrin and Pontius Pilate?

Whatever one wants to say about our President, at least he makes no claims of being a preacher of the gospel of Jesus Christ. But Rick Warren does make that claim about himself.

I remember very vividly some years ago a prominent Baptist pastor in our state, not far from where I live, came to Rick Warren's defense because Rick was beginning to get some criticism for his wayward beliefs. In the state Baptist paper, this pastor of a megachurch simply responded to a letter by saying that all the naysayers of Rick Warren can easily be discounted because God's hand of blessing was upon Rick due to his church's large growth and his wide influence around the world. The implication in this pastor's defense was that all the critics of Rick Warren were probably pastors of small churches, and therefore they simply were not of the caliber of a Rick Warren.

God was blessing Rick, so we should never question Rick, especially if you and I can't hold a candle to Rick's success.

Since Islam is growing faster around the world than all Purpose-Driven churches put together, then I guess we should conclude that God (or, Allah; it makes no difference, remember?) must be blessing Islam?

So while the Purpose Driven Life pastor is speaking at the annual convention of The Islamic Society of North America in some coming days, what shall we make of the deaths on the streets of Iran that are purposefully driven by a bloody ruthless regime whose "God" some say is no different than the Lord God whom Christians worship and serve?